David T. Eton

Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales.

Magnitude differences in scores on a measure of quality of life that correspond to differences in function or clinical course are called clinically important differences (CIDs). Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to provide ranges of CIDs for five targeted scale scores of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) questionnaire. Three samples of cancer patients were used: Sample 1 included 50 patients participating in a validation study of the FACT-An; Sample 2 included 131 patients participating in a longitudinal study of chemotherapy-induced fatigue; sample 3 included 2,402 patients enrolled in a community-based clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness and safety of a treatment for anemia. Three clinical indicators (hemoglobin level; performance status; response to treatment) were used to determine anchor-based differences. One-half of the standard deviation and 1 standard error of measurement were used as distribution-based criteria. Analyses supported the following whole number estimates of a minimal CID for these five targeted scores: Fatigue Scale = 3.0; FACT-G total score = 4.0; FACT-An total score = 7.0; Trial Outcome Index-Fatigue = 5.0; and Trial Outcome Index-Anemia = 6.0. These estimates provide a basis for sample size estimation when planning for a clinical trial or other longitudinal study, when the purpose is to ensure detection of meaningful change over time. They can also be used in conjunction with more traditional clinical markers to assist investigators in determining treatment efficacy.

What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire?: Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592

To assess the impact of disease and treatment on patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we set out to determine a clinically meaningful change (CMC) on the Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS) and the Trial Outcome Index (TOI) of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) questionnaire. We used data from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study 5592 (E5592), a randomized trial comparing three chemotherapeutic regimens in 599 advanced NSCLC patients. Patients completed the FACT-L at baseline (pretreatment), 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months. Comparing across baseline performance status (0 vs. 1), prior weight loss (<5% vs. > or = 5%), and primary disease symptoms (< or = 1 vs. >1), LCS and TOI score differences ranged from 2.4 to 3.6 and 6.5 to 9.2, respectively (all Ps <.001). Mean improvement in LCS score from baseline to 12 weeks was 2.4 points in patients who had responded to treatment versus 0.0 points in patients who had progressive disease. Twelve-week LCS change scores for patients progressing early were 3.1 points worse than those of patients progressing later (mean = -1.2 vs.1.9, respectively). Similarly, the average TOI change score from baseline to 12 weeks was -6.1 for patients who had progressive disease versus -0.8 points for patients who had responded to treatment. Twelve-week TOI change scores for patients progressing early (mean = -8.1) were 5.7 points worse than those of patients progressing later (mean = -8.1 vs. -2.4, respectively). Analyses assuming nonrandom missing data resulted in slightly larger differences. Clinically relevant change scores were estimated as two to three points for the LCS and five to seven points for the TOI, setting upper limits for minimal CMCs. These values were comparable to suggested distribution-based criteria of a minimally important difference. These results support use of a two to three point change in the LCS and five to six point change on the TOI of the FACT-L as a CMC, and offer practical direction for inclusion of important patient-based endpoints in lung cancer clinical trials.

Patient engagement in research: a systematic review

BackgroundA compelling ethical rationale supports patient engagement in healthcare research. It is also assumed that patient engagement will lead to research findings that are more pertinent to patients’ concerns and dilemmas. However; it is unclear how to best conduct this process. In this systematic review we aimed to answer 4 key questions: what are the best ways to identify patient representatives? How to engage them in designing and conducting research? What are the observed benefits of patient engagement? What are the harms and barriers of patient engagement?MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane, EBSCO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Business Search Premier, Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar. Included studies were published in English, of any size or design that described engaging patients or their surrogates in research design. We conducted an environmental scan of the grey literature and consulted with experts and patients. Data were analyzed using a non-quantitative, meta-narrative approach.ResultsWe included 142 studies that described a spectrum of engagement. In general, engagement was feasible in most settings and most commonly done in the beginning of research (agenda setting and protocol development) and less commonly during the execution and translation of research. We found no comparative analytic studies to recommend a particular method. Patient engagement increased study enrollment rates and aided researchers in securing funding, designing study protocols and choosing relevant outcomes. The most commonly cited challenges were related to logistics (extra time and funding needed for engagement) and to an overarching worry of a tokenistic engagement.ConclusionsPatient engagement in healthcare research is likely feasible in many settings. However, this engagement comes at a cost and can become tokenistic. Research dedicated to identifying the best methods to achieve engagement is lacking and clearly needed.

Improving Quality of Life in Men With Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Group Education Interventions

Men who were recently treated for prostate cancer (N=250) were randomly assigned to a control group, a group education intervention (GE), or a group education-plus-discussion intervention (GED). Both GE and GED increased prostate cancer knowledge. In the year postintervention, men in the GED condition were less bothered by sexual problems than men in the control condition, and they were more likely to remain steadily employed (93.0%) than men in the GE (75.6%) or control (72.5%) conditions. Among noncollege graduates, GED and GE resulted in better physical functioning than the control condition, and GED resulted in more positive health behaviors than the control or GE condition. Among college graduates, controls were comparable with the GE and GED groups in physical functioning and positive health behaviors.

Combining Distribution- and Anchor-Based Approaches to Determine Minimally Important Differences The FACIT Experience

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important endpoint in cancer clinical trials and in cancer treatment in general; however, the meaningfulness of HRQOL scores may not be apparent to clinicians or researchers. Minimally important differences (MIDs) can enhance the interpretability of HRQOL scores by identifying differences likely to be meaningful to patients and clinicians. This article’s objective is to describe and provide examples of approaches we have used to identify MIDs for instruments in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system. Distribution- and anchor-based approaches are described and illustrated. We also discuss the importance of assessing the appropriateness of anchors, and we provide suggestions for combining results into a single range of plausible MIDs. MIDs for FACIT instruments established to date are summarized, and general guidelines that can be used to estimate MIDs for other FACIT instruments are provided. Applications of MIDs in research are illustrated.

Early Quality of Life in Patients with Localized Prostate Carcinoma: An Examination of Treatment-Related, Demographic, and Psychosocial Factors

Men with localized prostate carcinoma are faced with important treatment decisions, and quality of life (QoL) information has become a crucial element of decision making. The first objective of this study was to compare the early, health‐related QoL (HRQoL) of men with localized prostate carcinoma who were treated with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or brachytherapy. A second objective was to identify demographic and psychosocial variables that predict HRQoL.

Rethinking the patient: Using Burden of Treatment Theory to understand the changing dynamics of illness

BackgroundIn this article we outline Burden of Treatment Theory, a new model of the relationship between sick people, their social networks, and healthcare services. Health services face the challenge of growing populations with long-term and life-limiting conditions, they have responded to this by delegating to sick people and their networks routine work aimed at managing symptoms, and at retarding – and sometimes preventing – disease progression. This is the new proactive work of patient-hood for which patients are increasingly accountable: founded on ideas about self-care, self-empowerment, and self-actualization, and on new technologies and treatment modalities which can be shifted from the clinic into the community. These place new demands on sick people, which they may experience as burdens of treatment.DiscussionAs the burdens accumulate some patients are overwhelmed, and the consequences are likely to be poor healthcare outcomes for individual patients, increasing strain on caregivers, and rising demand and costs of healthcare services. In the face of these challenges we need to better understand the resources that patients draw upon as they respond to the demands of both burdens of illness and burdens of treatment, and the ways that resources interact with healthcare utilization.SummaryBurden of Treatment Theory is oriented to understanding how capacity for action interacts with the work that stems from healthcare. Burden of Treatment Theory is a structural model that focuses on the work that patients and their networks do. It thus helps us understand variations in healthcare utilization and adherence in different healthcare settings and clinical contexts.

Early Change in Patient-Reported Health During Lung Cancer Chemotherapy Predicts Clinical Outcomes Beyond Those Predicted by Baseline Report: Results From Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study 5592

PURPOSE To determine the ability of longitudinal patient-reported health (PRH) scores to enhance prediction of clinical outcomes beyond baseline scores. PATIENTS AND METHODS In 573 advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients enrolled in a phase III clinical trial, we used baseline and 6-week follow-up PRH scores to predict best response to treatment, disease progression, and survival. Using regression analyses, we tested the predictive ability of the five subscales of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (physical, functional, social/family, emotional well-being, and the lung cancer subscale) as well as the trial outcome index (TOI) aggregate score. RESULTS After clinical factors were controlled for, baseline physical well-being (PWB) and TOI scores predicted all three clinical outcomes. A higher baseline PWB score was associated with a better response to treatment (odds ratio, 1.09; P <.001) and lower risk of death (risk ratio, 0.95; P <.001). Higher baseline TOI score was associated with a lower risk of disease progression (risk ratio, 0.98; P <.001). These two baseline predictors (PWB and TOI) were then used along with 6-week change scores to classify patients into four groups: low baseline-declined, low baseline-improved, high baseline-declined, and high baseline-improved. Patients with low baseline-declined PWB scores showed the worst responses to treatment and survived the shortest duration. Patients with low baseline-declined TOI scores had the shortest time to progression. CONCLUSION The physical aspects of baseline PRH and PRH change during chemotherapy are significant predictors of clinical outcomes in lung cancer. This has implications for patient stratification in clinical trials and may aid decision-making in clinical practice.

Psychological distress in spouses of men treated for early-stage prostate carcinoma.

The authors examined levels and predictors of psychological distress in the wives of men treated for early‐stage prostate carcinoma (PCa).

Spouse Social Control Efforts: Relations to Health Behavior and Well-Being among Men with Prostate Cancer

We measured perceptions of wives’ attempts to encourage appropriate health behavior among men with prostate cancer, a phenomenon known as ‘social control.’ We examined social control for health-enhancing behaviors (e.g., exercise), health-restorative behaviors (e.g., sleep), and health-compromising behaviors (e.g., smoking). We interviewed 80 married men with prostate cancer shortly after treatment, 2 months later, and 8 months later. Social control was distinct from social support and social conflict. There was no evidence that spouse social control was effective in producing positive changes in health behavior. In fact, health-restorative and health-compromising social control were associated with poorhealth behavior. There were no relations between social control and changes in health behavior over time. Spouse social control was associated with greater psychological distress, especially health-restorative and health-compromising social control. There was some evidence that social control undermined personal control beliefs over time. Future research should consider examining differences in the way that social control is conveyed, so that we may better understand its relations to health behavior and well-being.